Wednesday, February 20, 2013

SEQUEL TO LENR STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES. THE LIMITS OF A LENR THEORY

NO MOTTO because“Teoria sine praxis, sicut rota sine axis”
could be considered a kitschy stereotype.

Let’s try to be scientifically correct!
A good theory will help LENR to be accepted by the people and to become a practical energy source”-this statement has been repeated so many times in our community that we tend to believe that it is true. And this is, indeed a partial truth however many other know what, how and why elements are necessary to a real success i.e. both understanding and application.
Global correctness and honesty claim that following the publication of my LENR STRATEGY PRINCIPLES I should examine the alternate strategies and decide which one is the best;
If necessary I have to change or replace principles.

For the time given, the Principles have received the approval of a few persons in high regard by me; as a secondary effect my Blog was invaded by trolls a positive sign of increasing popularity and
I have received a single alternate strategy proposal, authored by Abd-ul Rahman Lomax, my knowledgeable LENR discussion partner. With Abd’s permission- this is his idea:

1. Demonstrate scientifically, with great precision and solid certainty that the Fleischmann Pons Effect has a nuclear nature.2. Develop a sound theory of the effect and explore its parameter space.3. Use the Theory to estimate the chances of scale-up and if OK, start great investment efforts for commercial power applications.

It is science-centric and having the roots in the “deuterium plus deuterium gives helium idea” demonstrated in a historical 1994 paper by Melvin Miles.
We are still discussing about it, however I could not accept it because:
a) I have doubts that the PdD system, especially if wet- can be scaled up and industrialized;
b) We cannot predict if some excellent theory elaborated for the PdD system would be valid for the NiH system too
This seems me a too time consuming research line and perhaps uselessly tortuous. But as I have confessed many times, I am far from being inerrant. (By the way, in a recent posting Mary Yugo has stated that possibly I am essentially good willed but I am as gullible and as intellectually impaired as Lewan, Essen and Kullander- an association I like)

I will continue speaking about LENR THEORY in the style of my former paper;

The Theory must be active, it comes with instructions of use.

The scientists and my readers know that there exist 3 categories of scientific theories:
3rd category- EXPLICATIVE-these tell what has happened in experiments, post factum;
2nd category- PROHIBITIVE- they say some important NO, exclude, interdict, limit, mutilate some phenomenon;
1st category- PREDICTIVE- these tell us what will happen.
Actually, in practice each theory has a peculiar combination of explicative, prohibitive, and predictive powers.
In the case of LENR the demand from a good theory goes much beyond of which unexpected (forget the damaging adjective “anomalous”!) nuclear reactions take place. The very first value & survival condition of a LENR theory is to explain and justify the disturbing mystery of the bad reproducibility of the LENR (PdD) experiments. For LENR+ the same question is good control.

Defkalion- (please see their NI WEEK/ICCF 17 paper or/and my other Principles paper:http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2012/07/some-basic-principles-of-defkalions.html) has reminded us that it exists a fourth category of theories PRODUCTIVE, actionable that tells us very directly what we have to do in order to get in practice a working LENR system. The interesting part is that they have revealed much more than the secret details that are not definitive and are inter-changeable. They have described in their theory the deepest secret of their technology- you have to make hydrogen reactive and the metal (nickel, a choice due to history and geography but only the future will show if it was the best choice indeed) more receptive. Their theory is about action. Pragmatism adds or subtracts to a theory. What do you think?

The Theory must be holistic – in time

The theory must be broad and has to refer to a whole: sequence of the pre-nuclear, the nuclear and the post-nuclear interaction and phenomena- and all these are a lot. The steps before the nuclear interactions are decisive and this is where the theory becomes similar to a versatile instruction manual.

The Theory must be holistic – in space

It is very artificial to distinguish between holistic in time and in space. The theory is about the Whole. This was formulated very intuitively by Edmund Storms who said recently:

A search for an explanation of LENR can take one of three basic paths. People can nit-pick about the mechanism, they can suggest any idea that comes to mind regardless of justification, or they can look for the overall patterns that must be explained. I'm trying to do the latter. As is the case with any complex process, logic demands that the various parts have a definite relationship to each other. For example, to make an automobile function, a power source has to be coupled to a gear box through a mechanism that isolates the engine from the wheels. The exact design is not important at this level of understanding. However, to simplify the description, general features of each part are frequently described. At this stage in the process of understanding, it is pointless to argue whether the engine is 4 or 6 cylinders or about the color of the car.

It is, however useful to discuss about the identity of the car. Is PdD a car or only a cradle? Can be LENR a car or only LENR+ has chances?

‘Holistic’ means that the process works only of all its components are present, are activated as necessary and are interacting as they have too. If anything is missing- finita la commedia, it does not work. A few weeks ago, Yiannis Hadjichristos has explained me : “In a certain sense, both structurally and functionally, the entire reactor is the NAE” Activated hydrogen, modified nickel, activators, modifiers, all these have to meet in the proper place at the prescribed parameters. Topology, is not only the first condition but much more, it is also the final condition for a sustainable functioning. This transcends the concept of “theory” as usual.

The Theory must be systemic and as complete as possible.
Systemic is an other powerful word for showing that everything in the working process is interrelated and has to collaborate harmoniously. Partial theories cannot help much, they have to be combined. LENR is not “a” problem, it is a scientific field composed (you guessed it) from different sub-fields and all these have to be understood, integrated, controlled, managed and continuously improved...

The Theory must be specific.
This is due to the acceptance of the diversity of the field. Only experience and time will show, perhaps all forms of LENR have some features in common but I think Pd D and NiH and LENR vs. LENR+ are operationally quite different. Contrary to the standard mentality, I think that the more technological forms deserve more science, research theory, efforts, and attention.

The theory is a mode of thinking.

The really wonderful theory sketched above is critically dependent of the mode of thinking of the Theorist+ who creates a new paradigm. His mode of thinking is, simultaneously a mode of action, because the theory is mainly about what we have to change for making the system work. His thinking must be clean,
free of bad memes, professional prejudices, inexistent correlations,
crippled metaphors and many other kinds of ballast ideas. Perhaps this is an explanation why LENR+, if it exists indeed as I say, was created by people outside the LENR community who are
not professional physicists.

NOTE. In his comments to the former paper, a gentleman who signs as John has written:My two cents is that if Peter knows something that the people should also know, he also has a social responsibility towards us, enhanced by the fact that we consider him to be a wise person and a sort of leading theoretical player in LENR arena.So Peter please share with us some facts that you know about Defkalion.

The wording is much too kind and my role & ambitions highly exaggerated. John, I very well know what my social responsibility is, and I have learned this many years ago. I have shared with my readers exactly what is the most important and valuable in their activity, the principles and their mode of thinking. This is essential, if they will go commercial in June or in September or if they use one additive or another, work at X or at Y megahertz –these are secondary issues of no use for your opinion. PLEASE read or re-read the relevant papers by and about them in the empathic mode. They have inspired this theory paper too and they are more than co-authors of it. Apply positive psychology to them, try to get deeper understanding of their modus-es of cogitandi, operandi, vivendi- and you will be truly informed

My conclusion to all these is that for making LENR the great, rich, cheap, healthy energy source of the future, we need much more than what is usually called a theory.

Thanks- well said and a brilliant analogy for poisoningthe wet forest History could be quite different if thetransition metal- light hydrogen would have been discoveredfirst. I think on some luckier planets this was the caseand there energy is no more a problem.Peter

Just my 2cents worth: The picture I am seeing is that a process is needed where each part plays its role such that the whole process works.

Taking the analogy of the car and applying it to a working LENR+ reactor, what I envision is ...

Basic fuel (for one form of LENR+ = Hydrated Ni) + Fuel structure (i.e form of the fuel such as nano-particles and *ample* NAE places in these particles) + Ignition (a method that reliably starts the production of an acceptable amount of anomalous heat) +Control (a method for regulating the amount of anomalous heat being produced) +Transfer (a means of extracting the anomalous heat and converting it into some other practical power) +Shutdown (an acceptable means for terminating the production of anomalous heat).

At some point we need theories for the various aspects of why & how the anomalous heat is being created. These theories need to aid in reproducibility and scaling of the effect. Also to aid in determining what other fuels and fuel structures may produce similar results.

From you past writings I accept that there are issues as to what is the best fuel and that Pd+D may not be ideal however enough evidence has emerged that Ni+H does look very promising.

If we do accept that there are Ni+H fuels that can produce anomalous heat, then the race is on for a coherent and holistic solution to the entire process. This issue appears to me to be what differentiates many of the claimants that say they have the answers. It may be that some only have parts of the process providing results but lack the holistic solution.

I wonder whether intellectual property is an evil thing, especially on technology that can save lives, prevent wars and global warming, etc. I wonder whether wanting to make not just millions (enough to secure one family's future) but billions and not reveal this information is an evil thing. I wonder... So now I have to ask myself, do I think that DGT is more sympathetic in case they are scammers then in case they actually have very interesting technology but keep it for themselves because of greed.

I fear that the solution to that dilemma (ip vs common good) is that someone has to ante up the investment to obtain the ip and when it comes to energy, those willing to ante up want something back.

On the broader theme of your thinking, it is possible that one world govt might be able to mandate such an investment (in LENR research) but there are a myriad of unanswered questions as to what would happen to the world if there one centralized govt. Whatever one thinks, it is a lot further into the future than some might hope. One potential though is it could lead to to stifled innovation. I am sure that happened in the USSR if that can be viewed as a model for a socialized world govt.

If I put on my reality hat, it has me saying that expecting DGT to discover a stable repeatable and commercially viable LENR reactor, then had it over to all, is just not real.

If I understand you correctly, you want DGT to apply the samebusiness strategy as it was at the Salk vaccine communicateeverything they have discovered and created by hard work freelyto the world. This method does not work in practice, capital is needed for research, development, improvenment, for manufacturingthe first thousand, million, billion (yes look at cars or cellular)phones. Welfare socialist, populist ideas can be noblebut they don't work. Where are you living? i had live 45 years in socilaism -read about the "Kaltwasser doctrine" in my blog.I wonder if you know how technological progress works?

And say DGT decides to tell you personally everything they know or have. What will be the result? Who are you? What is your sphere of influence? What can you do for the generators, what can you contribute? What are your problem solving abilities?I know it is disturbing but we live in a real worldbased on interest and competition.Do not be angry with me, I really want to help you despite yourlack of identity.Peter

@ Peter, I will not be angry with you. And you know my identity as we exchanched some emails in august last year. @ dsm and Peter, I believe that hard work should be rewarded. But how much? What return should one have to their investment? Should DGT (assuming they have something) make 100 million profit. Or 100 billion? And how many people will die or live in poverty in the meantime?

beside the morality question, note that if somone have 100 billion, he will either invest that cash into business that will buy goods or service, thus pay laymen to work...or it will buy goods or service and pay people to work...

people will die of hunger only if there is some waste of good or work, or if productivity of farming, manufacturing, do decrease.

another question is who will get the work, maybe more the greek and the canadian, than the emirates.

I agree with you on the notion that certain 'inventions' seem to and perhaps should really belong to the world.

The issue isn't a simple one. Today we mostly abide by a set of rules that encourage innovation & offer high rewards for risk takers seeking both achievement and reward.

I don't believe we have any defined rules for how such an achievement could or should pass from the existing rewards system to a "the world now owns it system".

There is also the reality that we need to find it first, then, there may be a broad motivation to explore new rules for common ownership of the discovery. I have no doubt the pre discovery debate would bear little resemblance to the post discovery debate.

I have prepared the answer to your question when I wrotethat LENR, first of all DGT will not cause a revolution,will not be a disruptive change (their CEO and their BusinessDirector have repeatedly alluded to this, they are realists and pragmatiss before being materialists. The change will cost a lotand negative side effects have to be reduced, the world's energyinfrastructure must be radically changed, again stairwise not simply stepwise.The inertia in this case will be much greater than in the recent success stories as of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook- the generators cannot progress so fast as say cellulars or tablets.Should make DGT 100 million or 100 billion profit? As much as possible because this profit is RE-INVESTED will not used for buying castles, islands or jets- it will be reinvested in manufacturing better, more efficient, cheaper, greater energy sources.Do you think their profit is correlated with the number of peopledying of hunger somewhere? The general technological progress paid with their money will be good for everybody.By the way, one of the main causes of hunger our consumerismand terrible waste of food, around 50% of it is lost in the happier part of the world. Ask Koalemos (stupidity), Hermes (grred) and Ares (violence- as dictatorships)

I think that the fact that change might come slowly is an argument to start as soon as possible. A lot of power plants (and cars etc) are being built and planned as we speak, so the sooner the new technology is available, the better it is.

Fast or slow, it is relative, it is important it shouldnot hurt many people and industries. Remember it was toldhere a lot and not only by DGT or me, about the bureaucratic obstacles. if you want a terrifiant example think about GMO crops. Even when all the real problems will be solved the development will go counterstream andthere willbe many uphill (for the generators) battles. One reason more for DGT to have big money.Peter